Sorry this is showing up as one paragraph. It shows two in when I edit, but not in the preview or actual post. It is probably due to posting from phone.
2013 OL and Borges Offensive Play Calling
It looked like it, but I'm not 100%, obviously.
Thanks for the help. You are a scholar and a gentleman
Players will actually be able to execute next season.
Wait...You mean to tell me that Lewan is coming back?!
If you really trust your tackles (presumably our two tackles will be fifth year seniors), then you probably want to aim to run off the edges. Running up the gut would seem to be a bad idea. I would expect to see more of the I-formation power running plays, with Kalis and/or the other guard pulling up through the hole.
You are 100% right, but what have you seen to lead you believe Borges will follow it? This year despite no evidence we could get a push up the middle we seemingly kept trying it. Why we didn't run more short yardage over Lewan baffles me.
With our personnel I would like to have seen us use an old school pro set with a FB behind the qb and a TB split to the side of the FB and just have some quick hitting off tackle plays behind Lewan in short yardage. Penn St used this quite effectively over the years.
We don't want to go completely 2007 Debord but I plays run to the left should be a staple of next years offense.
I thought a big reason we didn't run that this year was because Omameh had trouble on pulling. He was good in a spread offense of getting off blocks and to the second level, but struggled with being a lead blocker
I outlined it more below, it also had to do with the fact that Michigan was limited at TE.
It also had to do with the fact that the guards struggled to reach/drive block (when Michigan started pulling tackles instead of of guards when the guards struggled) so defensive players started getting a push into the backfield.
It also had to do with the way defenses aligned to dare Michigan to run up the middle.
So there was really a culmination of issues that caused Michigan to struggle to run to the outside (outside of jet sweeps).
I was always told the idea of the best tackle being on the left side is that its the QBs blindside (assuming QB is righty) and the strongest DE is usually against him coming from the defense's right. The QB can see to the right better if he's a righty- so he can respond to pressure better meaning you want better defense from the left side. I've never really thought about how tackles impact what direction to run the ball- that always seems like more of a coaches philosophy to me- so I was thinking our running wouldn't change?
Was I told correctly about the left/right tackle positioning strategy?
Yes, that is the conventional wisdom.
This is why some teams' RT is basically another guard - a guy who can pass block well enough against a non-elite pass-rusher (since most teams don't have two) and who is a great drive blocker.
But they really are quite different than guard in footwork and a lot different in pass protection. Teams tend to be right handed because most people are right handed/footed and it's easier to operate in the direction you're stronger.
The LT/RT debate is something like the boundary/field corner debate. Typically your left tackle is more agile and is better in pass pro, while your RT is a better run blocker, he can reach, seal, and drive people. However, just like sometimes the boundary corner is more physical but also the better cover guy, it just so happens that a lot of the traits that make someone a good LT can help them with run blocking as well (footwork, pop, etc), so they are the best overall lineman anyway.
The thing you have to consider with the QB and running the ball is that Gardner is right-handed and, presumably, better at throwing when moving to his right. So it would behoove Michigan to develop the running game behind the RG and RT, which would make it a little easier for Gardner to run play action passes without turning his back to the defense all the time.
But yeah, the left tackle is typically the pass blocking/blind side tackle.
A few questions. When you run right, does the left guard pull? Does your opinion on running right change at all with an athlete like Devin? I'd imagine that if we ran left and Gardner ran play action, he would also have a check down to his legs easier with only a DE or linebacker to beat to the edge? Thanks
Hoke, who loves the power play, would pull the left guard on a Power Right.
Gardner scrambles much more decisively than Denard Robinson, so yeah, we could run a naked bootleg and if the WR or TE isn't open, then Gardner could pretty easily run it.
It depends on defensive alignment, what run fake you are doing, ect. Depending on all those things, you may have both guards pull, a guard/center pull, even a playside tackle pull, or just one of the above. For instance, it's typically more difficult to pull if you are covered away from the playside and so is the offensive lineman to the playside (this is why the bear defense works so well against the run, every lineman is covered making it difficult to pull any of them withut the defense getting into the backfield).
Now if you are faking run right and rolling Devin to the right on an outside run fake, you will most likely see the playside guard pull. You may also simply see the FB or the RB who received the fake be responsible to seal the end man on the LOS. This is because he has to get out on the edge to prevent a LB or DE from getting right upfield to the QB. If you play action left and roll right or a fake power, you could see any of the above pull (playside/backside guard or center) but it will most likely be the backside guard.
I think Devin is more effective at rolling than Denard was, mainly because he is still a threat to run, but not necessarily as much of one. Teams kept a lot of players outside on Denard to contain him, but Devin is a good enough passer from the pocket that teams need to respect that more and probably don't respect his legs as much, making him more likely and probably better at scrambling.
I still don't think Michigan will naked boot much (meaning not pull anyone) because DEs and LBs are still likely to contain on DG, especially sinse Michigan will still be playaction and roll heavy and DG has good legs. So more often than not you will see tend to see someone pull to try to take care of that DE or LB on the edge (unlike, say, when Navarre was at Michigan, where you could naked boot and heavy sell run, because teams didn't really fear his legs so the backside DE would collapse to try to stop it).
Any chance you will make a diary sometime with some of the play designs? When you say they won't naked bootleg when running left and rolling Gardner right, does this mean either Kalis at left guard or the center would pull and act as lead blocker/ pass protector?
Essentially, I just don't think it's wise to naked boot Gardner on any play action fake because defenses respect his running ability enough to keep someone on the backside to contain him.
So yes, I think if you fake run left and roll DG right, you will see an interior lineman pull backside, or a FB/H-back leak backside to seal the contain man inside so that the defender isn't right in DG's face when he turns around and DG can break outside the pocket.
but I'm not so sure about the DEs. They don't necessarily stay on one particular side, Remember our line switching sides just before the snap in response to a formation change. Also the best pass rushers aren't necessarily the best run stoppers.
They don't necessarily stay on one side, but they usually do. Most teams want their best pass-rusher on the right side, at least on passing downs. Think about it - how many times did you see Clowney go up against Schofield as opposed to Lewan? Same thing with Gholston. When it was a passing down, those guys were on the defense's right side. When you saw our D-line switching sides, it was more for the run than for the pass.
You're also correct that most good pass-rushers aren't the team's best run stoppers. A SDE will be better against the run than the WDE, which is why a lot of teams like to run left more often.
Inside runs are vital to any offense; those are the runs that open up the off tackle opportunities. Your YPC avg. will almost always be higher on the outside, but if the defense knows that's where you're going, it's going to be tough sledding.
Inside runs are not designed to be home runs; they are designed to force your opposition to defend the middle of the field, thus opening the outside of the field where big plays can happen.
Even Chip Kelly admits his goal is to be able to run up the gut--it is the shortest path to yards (straight line) and forces the defense to adjust.
I think I read before you want your more run heavy, less agile player at right guard and your more complete, better in pass protect player at left guard. In our situation we have Kalis who is supposed to be a monster at pass protect, run blocking, so we move kalis to left guard because he is better suited there and put Bryant at right guard because the coaches have said his run blocking is ahead of his pass blocking, and that is where he has been practicing the last couple years anyway.
So does this assume we are running to the right? It seems like you would want to run to the left to both run behind Lewan and Kalis (not sure which gap this is) and would also help open up play action since Gardner would roll to the right. It seems like this would combine spread tendencies with power running. How often should we expect linemen to release to the second level? I know that Brian mentioned Hoke was of the linebackers make tackles lineman cause turnovers mindset so I don't know if that means much releasing.
Someone post anything positive that the coaches have said about Chris Bryant? I'm not doubting him, just seems like before he got hurt in camp, he wasn't talked about at all, seemed like even Joey B was getting more mentions. Seems like it was even mentioned on here about Chris Bryant not getting a whole lot of love...just wondering because so many believe Bryant is going to be plugged in next season.
I'm not sure about the coaches, but practice buzz suggested Bryant was the best run blocker on the team, but that he needed to work on his pass blocking.
After reading the title I guess I have to say that I hope his play calling is less offensive in 2013 , and more effective than it was at times in 2012. I think he called a pretty good bowl game, and it was better executed than I expected. I think our offense in 2013 is looking up. I would expect the scheme to be more consistant next year than it was this year because we should hopefully only need one qb.
I just hope that Hoke or Dave Brandon spoke long to Borges after that disastrous 2nd half against Ohio so that we NEVER see a game with that bad of playcalling again.
I was looking through some pictures of George Whitfield (the QB coaching guru) and saw pics of lots of current college QB's (Braxton Miller, Logan Thomas). So some of these guys are traveling out to San Diego to train with him. Any idea what our guys are doing in the offseason? Curious how much imporvement DG will make between now and next season.
Mainly, I'm hoping Borges' Offensive Play Calling next year will be less...offensive.
I've gotten over the Nebraska/Devin fiasco...
I've not quite gotten over the loss in Cbus.
No Funchess against SC? Also, I get that the call was missed at the line, but who runs Vincent anywhere near Clowney? Thanks for the endless ESPN clips.
Runs him near Clowney? I don't think Smith even got a chance to take one stride forward.
and if Clowney had been half a step faster, it wouldn't have mattered if Ron Dayne was in the game, Clowney would've taken the handoff himself for the first ever handoff pick 6.
We had momentum after that crazy review, but even if the assignment wasn't blown, Vincent's run wasn't going to build on that momentum. Big Al really blew it with that call.
You have to give guys a chance to make a play and you have to give guys a chance to rest.
Not one of our RB's where even close to being effective. Not fitz, vince, rawls, hayes none of them. Denard ran like a beast but he can't run every down. Who would you have run? Fitz was out, I think rawls is done and Hayes is a RS freshman and about the same size as Smith.
That was nothing to do with play calling it was 100% execution and a missed assignment by the O line
I was hoping to see a Devin rollout to the right side with Denard in the backfield as the option.
Actually, I was hoping to see this a lot during the game, but I don't remember it once.
Lewan stated that this was a miscommunication and resulting missed assignment on that play. I think you can blame Borges partly because his player was unprepared ( although he is a freshman and very few other options) however the play call may have been ok otherwise (although 1 yard carries fr that formation were the norm in that game)
I'm not sure what his numbers were for the game, but Smiths average was probably less than 1 ypc. That first down playcall was vital to keep SC off balance, so why call a play that had mostly gone for no gain the whole game? The fact that it ended up being part of a highlight reel makes it sting a bit more. If Borges really had to call a run, then give it to Denard on a jet sweep, away from Clowney.
You can run the same play 100 times and get 100 different results. There where a few games in 2011 where Denard would have 15 carries or so for 20 yards and then boom he breaks an 80 yard run. you have to give them a chance to break one
I've been pushing for a different scenario - with Kalis and Lewan on the left side, I like the idea of a more fleet-footed RG who can pull and kick out, and I think Erik Magnuson would be a good option there. He's big enough, played guard well at the AAA game a couple years ago and is one of our more athletic linemen who should be able to pull and get out in front of the RBs well. That would make the starting OL Lewan - Kalis - Miller - Magnuson - Schofield.
The other reason I like this move is because I think Magnuson might be the best option to replace Lewan in a year, and this gives him a year of on-field experience under his belt, so our starting LT isn't so green in 2014.
EDIT: Also, the way I would address depth in this scenario would be to have Bryant (or whichever OG is best) as the back-up at both guard spots, and have Braden come in at RT if either OT goes down (Schofield moving to LT if it's Lewan).
Also, also - if Chris Bryant comes into fall as a beast, I'll happily trash this proposal, as that would probably be best-case scenario.
Look I'm not a Borges hater like many on this site, but even I've got to admit that our guy calls what he wants, often regardless of the defense or even effectiveness.
After having watched him run I-form play action with Denard Robinson and 3rd &1 Iso's with Vincent Smith, I think it's a stretch to imagine play calls will differ based on OL set-up. If we're stronger on the left side, we'll go there when we need a yard. Otherwise Borges will run what he wants and assume the OL has been prepared to execute. I will say I'm excited to see what this offense looks like.
Borges has a little Mike Martz in him. When he has the players and systems he wants, he's an incredible play caller and offensive guru. However, he's not that willing to fix his system to his players.
How can you say this with a straight face? The guy had his square peg/round hole face-palm moments sure, but he also ran two years worth of offense custom tailored to Denard Robinson. We haven't really even begun to see what a Al Borges Offense looks like yet.
I think the offense will be very different. As Space Coyote has pointed out, Borges was running an offense that not only differed because of denard, but also because of the linemen and tight ends. I think next years offense will look a lot different more because of the line and was wondering what others thought that might look like
Denard Robinson ran 221 times in 2011 and 177 times in 2012. Borges isn't willing to tailor his play calling to his players? Really?
Don't get me wrong, I really like Borges, but I am more excited to see (and have more faith in) what he will do with our incoming players than what he tried to do with Denard and co. His play calling became stagnant after awhile.
When? Against Iowa? Against South Carolina? Every team has its own set of plays. If you watch any team long enough, things will seem redundant.
I don't care how it gets done nor by whom, just control the LOS and run the freakin' ball to set up the play action. This year was so painful to watch at times as the OL couldn't move anyone off the ball with any consistency.
A lot of teams lined up their LBs and DEs in positions to make it difficult to run to the outside. Most defenses almost dared Michigan to run up the middle (this was probably due to Michigan's weak interior line, but also because opposing coaches really feared Denard in space, and getting him to the edge was more scary then him running up the middle).
And actually, even last year, Michigan's interior either struggled to properly downblock or pull. Eventually, it was often the TEs downblocking and the tackles pulling because the interior guys struggled in space. The issue there is Michigan essentially had three TEs on roster, two that couldn't threaten catch - one of which was inexperienced and struggled to block as well), and another that struggled to block. If a team struggles to seal the inside guys inside and struggles to block in space, it's difficult to get to the edge with a base blocking scheme rather than a zone blocking one.
So that's why you saw Michigan not run the ball off-tackle or outside a ton this year, because defenses often got a lot of penetration and didn't really even give runners a chance to get to the outside or cut it up behind the play. Hopefully next year will improve.
I'm pretty sure Denard had something to do with opposing teams lining DEs and LBs up outside to prevent us from going outside.
You never wanted to give up the edge, keep everything inside.
With that said, think about how many 7-9 yard runs Denard had by faking to the back and taking the ball straight up the middle.
will help us with manball and will open up the play action and screens/veers. The oline has the size to play man blocking and pulling your guards, but it seems like zone will open up our run game which is where we were hurt bad this year.
I thought zone blocking required a different skill set and type of offensive lineman than man ball type blocking. I know that Michigan made the switch in 2004 or 05 I think. I thought it also requires a back with really good vision, patience, and cutting ability, where as man ball calls for a play for a specific gap.
Zone is very often apart of a power running game (see most NFL teams). Even the 1980's Redskins who popularized the counter/power play ran a lot of zone as well. They called their inside zone play Gut and it was their Base running play. Many times people think zone is only run by spread teams and is more of a finese run play but thats not always true. There are some great OL dvd's out there from Joe Bugel on the counter game, Russ Grimm on the power game and organizing the run game and Alex Gibbs on the inside and outside zone play. The Bugel and Gibbs tapes I think you can get on Gilman Gear and the Grimm tapes the Cool Clinic. The Bugel counter tape starts by talking about their base zone play and shows a clip of them blowing the 85 bears defense off the ball 5 yards with their zone combos.
So I think you will see some zone as well as power/counter. Most power running teams have the following plays in there playbook and run them out of mutiple formations:
Inside Zone strong/weak
Outside Zone strong/weak
Power strong/weak (fb/h kickout, backside guard lead through)
Counter strong/weak (backside guard kickout, fb/h/t/te pull through)
Then all sorts of variations off these too, whether they are blocking variations or misdirection plays. And play action passes off all them too.
I don't think Hoke and Borges are very likely to go to a zone blocking scheme next year, but we'll see...
We've been a zone blocking team. Zone reads are all zone blocked plays. The only plays we run that aren't zone blocked are power/iso which are man-man scheme. We haven't ran any trap plays or anything like that in years. So we've been a primarily zone blocking team, either way.
The last few years our offense was primarily a zone read, and QB power in terms of the run game. We sometimes tried to run some Iso and power stuff out of the I-formation with dismal results. I would expect we scrap most, if not all of our shotgun zone read plays. I would expect to see inside zone at TE (Wisconsin style), and outside zone plays out of run formations, mixed in with Iso's when the D starts playing the edges hard, and traps and power plays when the DL starts getting up field trying to attack our pro-style pass game. Throw in some boots to keep the defense honest, and some 3 and 5 steps drops to compliment our run game. It will be very Wisconsin looking. Obviously, we will still have shotgun for obvious passing situations, but like I said lot's of inside/outside zone runs, and power plays. Those are staples of a pro-style offense, and they're universal in how they are run. You can look up the mechanics of the plays if you are interested. The concepts are shockingly simple, and those will be our base plays. They can be run with/without a lead blocker.
Michigan ran approximately zero zone reads last year. They ran a lot of inverted veer reads with man blocking, but I don't recall them zone blocking once. Borges doesn't zone block much in his past and Hoke has outwordly said he's not a big fan of it (though most teams have a least some plays that still utilize it, and Michigan probably will too, but not many).
Michigan is not going to be an inside zone running team. They will run power, iso, counter, they will pull guards and/or tackles to get to the edge. They aren't about to switch up their whole philosophy when they have the guys they want and think can run their system. This won't be a Wisconson looking team, this team will look much more like pre-'03 Carr era Michigan (though Michigan's pass game wasn't very WCO oriented, they sprinkled some of it in)/ Steve Young 49ers type/current Stanford teams.
You just contrardicted yourself. You said we will be an inside zone team, but won't use any zone blocking. Zone blocking is a staple of any run-oriented offense. You can't run power/iso/manmanblock every play. Inside zone at TE and outside zone WILL be in our aresenal I can gurantee it. I say it will look like Wisconsin because Bielema learned it from the old school guys and made it famous at Wisconsin. And I've never seen ANYONE in college football run an inverted veer read. So I HATE when people call it that. A veer read is 2 reads, DT, DE, and if you then want to count the OLB (that would make a 3). What we ran is a ZONE READ (1 read). Denard was reading ONE defender in a zone and making a decision based on what that defender did...zone read. There is 1000 different types of zone read. A REAL inverted veer read would be reading the DE first, then the 3 tech, or 1 tech. And there is no such play...no such thing as an inverted veer. I'm sorry it's coach speak and we play a very good veer team to open the season every year so I hate when people mislabel the veer. We did run zone read this year when Denard was playing QB. We did zone block because that's what you do on zone reads. I'm sure we switched betwen zone and man blocking depending one situation. How do I know this? Last year I talked to Coach Funk at the Kalamazoo clinic for about an hour and bombarded him with all kinds of technical questions. I will be attending next weekend. I'll let you guys know how it goes. I hate to be a technical Tommy, but I'm right.
No where in my post did I say we were going to run inside zone, and I don't think we are going to run much if any inside zone runs. So I don't think I contridicted myself. Zone blocking is totally different then man blocking. Zone read is zone blocking, not man blocking which Michigan did exclusively the last two years. I'm not sure what you're watching or coaching but it's very different than what most call it. The term "inverted veer" read refers to the play where Denard reads the playside DT, playside DE or second level LB that is flowing to stop the outside run from the RB, it uses power blocking, not zone blocking like you're saying. Yes there are different people you can read, but it's not zone blocking, it's man blocking and most typically power blocking. That is a quite common phrase that has been used by many people to describe that play. I'm not sure you know what zone blocking is or what man blocking is.
Michigan will not, I repeat, will not be an inside zone running team, and I never said they would be. They may run it once in a while to catch the other team off guard or switch things up based on defensive alignment, but they will man block much more than zone block. This isn't Wisc or the Colts with Peyton Manning. The main type of blocking done by Michigan is and will be man blocking for the forseeable future. The "zone read" reads the backside end with the RB going one way and the QB the other, that's the common term. Zone read has zone blocking. Michigan didn't zone read.
You either don't know what you're talking about or your football vocabulary is very different than most coaches. I'm a coach too. Magnus is a coach too. There's a reason both of us are saying you aren't correct in this situation, because according to most people (including coaches) you are very wrong. Watch the QB read plays again, you will consistently see one or two O-linemen pulling around and man blocking, not zone blocking.
Zone read is called zone read because of the zone blocking concept. There is and inside and outside zone read that use inside zone blocking and outside zine blockingrblocking respectively. Those are two different types of blocking techniques for zone blocking. You can read the end man on the line of scrimmage or an interior tackle, but you read a man.
Also, a veer and an inverted veer are completely different plays. Its only called an inverted veer because the qb and rb invert where they would run a veer. TypIcally you down block everyone but the playsIde end and read hIm. In familiar with the veer. I've coached against it too. Completely different thing.
But where in the heck did you get those records in your sig line?
I'll look up the schemes to understand where plays go. I'm hoping sometime in the offseason we will get a nice diary explaining this exactly. I think we see almost as big of a transition in offense this year as we did during the coaching change. I think it will be a fun offense, as Borges is known as a guy who likes a lot of different plays and Hoke has proven to be am aggressive play calling coach
Your definition of the zone read differs from mine.
on the Clowney/V Smith beheading...let's not run that again. Great, thanks.
The let's give ESPN even more reason to be on Clowney's nutz blocking scheme is definetly overrated and needs to be adjusted this off season.
Sorry, just on the beheading of V. Smith play.
That's what kills me, is that so many people didn't even watch the game, all they saw was that damn clip. So many people don't realize what a great job T Lewan did on Clowney for most of the game, except for just a few plays...and even this play wasn't Lewan's fault, it was a miscommunication.
Either way that play was called, Kwiatkowski should have at least touched Clowney. Whether it was a double-team with a Lewan or a straight-up down block, Kwiatkowski totally whiffed. That's more on the TE than anyone.
...but even if he had gotten the call at the line,do you think that a he had much of a chance getting a push on Clowney regardless? Based on the game so far, that call was going to yeild zero yards at best and I think Borges should have been more carefull/creative to continue the momentum swing.
How will Borges call plays?
He'll line the team up in the I and run either:
A) Play action pass in which the QB turns his back to the line.
B) Run power.
C) A quick pass.
I think the veer is dead but hopefully we'll be MANBALL enough that we can run power on third and short instead of doing it with spread personnel on a critical down against a hated rival.
It's going to be awhile before I forgive Borges.
1. Inside zone at TE
2. C gap power
4. Outside zone at TE
5. 3 step West Coast
6. 5 step West Coast
7. Inside trap (See Harbaugh and the 49ers everytime they play the Lions because of our terribly undisciplined DL play)
8. BYU 2-back pass game. Look it up. Lots of guys stoled it and incorporated it into the gun, but the BYU 2-back attacking pass game was killer in it's day. And we'eve seen Hoke come out in that old-school 2 back formation already.
and to the guy who told me it won't look like Wisconsin..every run oriented team runs the same run plays. It just depends on which ones they favor. Do Stanford and Wisconsin look the same, no but they run all the same plays. Stanford favors pulling guards and power plays, Wisconsin favors zone plays. But, I gurantee the players on each team know ALL the basic run plays whether they be zone, power, iso, man/man playes etc. Because EVERY heavy run team runs the same plays, save Midline option teams.
Will they have inside/outside zone as part of their package? Probably, yes. Like you said, there are only so many run plays. But it will be far from a staple. Michigan will not run it much, and I'm not wrong here. They will run much, much more man blocking as they have the past two years. I'm very familiar with all the things you listed above, you aren't above my head on this. I'm just not sure you actually watched Michigan play the past two years because you seem to be heavily confusing man and zone blocking. You seem to be unfamiliar with the coaches philosophy in their blocking style. I can promise you that the O-line does know both types of blocking (you keep listing power, iso, so on and so forth, but those are all types of man blocking), but I can also promise Michigan practices man blocking significantly more than zone blocking because there isn't enough time to practice both significantly. That is why teams are typically prodominately one or the other, because the techniques, reads, etc. are very different.
Ugh. Its not the "undisciplined" DT play that makes that trap work so well against the Lions. When you're running Wide 9 all kinds of traps open up.
Which they are willing to give up because the pass rush trade off is supposed to make it worthwhile. Pass D is a heckuva lot more important then rush D in the NFL.
Don't know why anyone hasn't mentioned pulling Lewan by himself to his *left*. Line up a TE next to him, have the TE downblock and pull Lewan into space. Nevada runs - or did run it anyway - this from the Pistol to great effect.